Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Co.
773 F.3d 977
9th Cir.2014Background
- Peabody Western Coal Co. mined coal on Navajo Nation lands under two Interior‑drafted, IMLA‑approved leases (1964, 1966) that required preference in hiring to "Navajo Indians."
- The EEOC sued (2001), alleging the tribal hiring preference constituted national‑origin discrimination under Title VII and that Peabody violated Title VII record‑keeping requirements.
- The Navajo Nation was joined as a party and the Secretary of the Interior was impleaded; the case proceeded through multiple prior appeals and remands.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Peabody and the Nation, holding the preference is a political classification (not national origin) under Mancari and thus not prohibited by Title VII; the EEOC appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the lease preferences are political classifications tied to federal Indian policy and trust obligations, Title VII does not reach those preferences, the EEOC’s late motion to supplement was properly denied, and the EEOC waived its record‑keeping claim on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal hiring preference in Interior‑approved mineral leases violates Title VII’s ban on national‑origin discrimination | EEOC: Tribal affiliation preferences are a form of national‑origin discrimination prohibited by Title VII | Secretary/Peabody/Nation: Preference is a political classification tied to tribal self‑government and federal trust obligations (Mancari) and thus outside Title VII’s reach | Preference is a political classification; Title VII does not prohibit it — summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether Title VII §703(i) (Indian preference exemption) allows only general Indian vs. non‑Indian preferences or also implies tribe‑specific exemptions | EEOC: §703(i) limits permissible preferences to Indians vs. non‑Indians; it does not authorize tribe‑specific preferences | Defendants: §703(i) is an exemption for general Indian preferences; tribal affiliation is political and distinct, and Congress did not need to carve out tribe‑specific language to leave those preferences intact | §703(i) does not bar recognition that tribe‑specific preferences tied to federal Indian policy are political and not covered by Title VII |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying EEOC’s late motion to supplement the record with a 1999 investigator declaration | EEOC: Evidence shows Peabody sometimes preferred non‑Navajo Indians, supporting a national‑origin theory | Defendants: Motion was untimely and the evidence was long available; it would inject a new theory late in litigation | Denial was within discretion; evidence untimely and would raise a new theory |
| Whether EEOC preserved its Title VII record‑keeping claim on appeal | EEOC: Continues to assert the claim | Defendants: EEOC failed to argue it on appeal | EEOC waived the record‑keeping claim by failing to brief it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (upholding Indian hiring preference as political classification tied to federal trust obligations)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (discussing IMLA purpose to foster tribal self‑determination)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 154 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 1998) (pleading stage: tribal affiliation can state a Title VII national‑origin claim)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (clarifying prior opinion did not resolve merits and recognizing federal deference to tribal self‑governance defenses)
- Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000) (reiterating that Congress may single out Indians for special treatment in fulfillment of federal obligations)
- Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977) (upholding differential treatment among Indian groups where tied to congressional obligations)